This is a great bridge article, thanks!
On 2013-03-24 10:45 AM, "Gabriel Gonzalez"
On 03/24/2013 10:30 AM, Costello, Roger L. wrote:
Hi Folks,
I read this statement by Tim Berners-Lee [1]:
It is not only necessary to make sure your own system is designed to be made of modular parts. It is also necessary to realize that your own system, no matter how big and wonderful it seems now, should always be designed to be a part of another larger system.
Recently I have been working hard to learn how to better modularize. But now TBL says that I must do more - I must not only modularize well, but I must also build the modules so that they can be part of other larger systems.
How do I design modules so that they may be part of other larger systems? Are there any articles that give guidelines on how to do this? What are your thoughts on how to do this?
I recommend that you read the following post I wrote:
http://www.haskellforall.com/**2012/08/the-category-design-**pattern.htmlhttp://www.haskellforall.com/2012/08/the-category-design-pattern.html
It introduces category theory in the context of designing modular and resuable components. Category theory differentiates itself from other vague notions of modularity by providing an elegant and precise definition of what it means for something to be "modular".
/Roger
[1] http://www.w3.org/**DesignIssues/Principles.htmlhttp://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Principles.html
______________________________**_________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/beginnershttp://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
______________________________**_________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/beginnershttp://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners